The World of Thought and Masculinity

Click to read the article in Turkish/Kurdish

For a long time now, I have been living in a world, which we may call the world of thought, that consists of academics and intellectuals. What I mean by the world of thought is that in this world the thought is a value and even a goal in and of itself.

A person who enters this world is expected to live a life of thought, placing the activity of thinking in the center of their life, and believe in the explanatory and transformative power of thought. It means that this person should deepen and expand their thought, try to overcome the obstacles before the thought and if necessary, brave certain risks for the sake of defending their thought because they take the thought seriously.

As an objection, it might be said that such a world is not in the true World, no one leads such a naive life of thought, the activity of thought always comes after other activities and concerns, and the people who take risks to develop their thoughts are always a very small minority everywhere.

Furthermore, it might be thought that the activity of thinking itself takes place within inner walls that are most of the time invisible, so the thought of the person who thinks is inadvertently confined by emotional, class-based, religious, sexual and ethnic boundaries.

But as an ideal, the world of thought takes such criticisms seriously as well, examines them and waits for the subject, whose life of thought continues, to objectify their world along with the other worlds and even their own self.

This ideal has been continuing its strong and respected existence at least since Socrates and especially for the last two centuries during which the world of thought has gained some autonomy against the society and the state.

We can deduce the unique power of the aforementioned esteem and prestige also by looking at it from the reverse, for instance, by the fact that the people and political movements that attack this ideal are viewed as vulgar and go down in history as such.

I personally entered this special world at the end of 1999 when I became a research assistant at the Faculty of Political Sciences (SBF) in Ankara University. In those times, the faculty was quite different from the SBF of the 1960s and 1970s which Tuğrul Eryılmaz mentioned in his piece also featured in this series. The number of women students and faculty members had increased drastically, making up fifty percent of the student and faculty body.

But more important than the numerical increase was the fact that a significant part of the women academics were feminists. My first encounter with feminism happened in such an environment, a few months after I became a research assistant.

We were having our coffee and cigarettes after lunch and chatting, I don't remember anything about what I was saying save for one word. I remember that word because a feminist friend of mine, who was also a research assistant, had scolded me "You will not say lady, you will say woman!".

The other thing that remained in my memory from that moment and was impossible to forget was the shame I felt. I'd turned red to my ears. But aside from the shame of those days, that scolding did me good.

Thanks to this scolding which I took as an accelerated course, I started to realize that the choice of words is not a simple choice, there is a gigantic history and hierarchy of power behind it; therefore, by the mere act of choosing to use another word for that one, a decision is taken to stop being part of that history and become part of a new world.

I'm using first-person singular here but my experience is not a singular experience. Like everybody else I've also constantly observed how the feminists educated and changed the male academics over the years.

I think the most important factor behind the change was the necessity for change.

Male academics had to change because feminism emerged at SBF (and at other faculties in Cebeci and innumerable universities across the world) with a great and legitimate power that belonged to itself.

In such an environment, the entire manner of existence and modus operandi of male academics ranging from their thoughts and statements, to the panels they organize and books they edit man to man, from the way they walk and use their hands and arms, to their approach towards women students and their various aggressions including those in their romantic relationships came to be questioned and criticized.

Thus, men started to behave under the scrutiny and by seeking the approval of an imaginary feminist in their minds before they presented themselves to the real-life feminists' critical and seeing eyes.

In his book on the possibility of men changing by refuting patriarchy, bell hooks says that men in fact want to change but they fear the change, and for this reason feminism needs to help men and introduce some maps of change to them. [1]

However, as I mentioned earlier, in certain fields like the world of thought, fear (of falling into contempt, being despised, being left behind) itself can be an instrument for change.

But the reason for change is not only negative, that is to say, change doesn't merely stem from fear or necessity. As men began to lose the power brought by manhood and their male privileges and thus began to establish a more equal relationship with the women around them, they started to get rid of the burdens of masculinity that also crush and rigidify them and simultaneously afflict and banalize them.

On the one hand, this enabled them to see the invisible obstacles surrounding their thoughts, which led them to think more clearly. On the other hand, the romantic and friendly relationships formed with feminist women let them learn a form of intimacy that they were not previously acquainted or familiar with since it entailed a certain equality.

Thanks to this form of intimacy, men could relate to their own feelings, that is, they could start contemplating on what they feel and why they feel like that, which in turn was enabling them to empathize with other people's feelings.

Especially since seeing and knowing yourself better lets one get rid of the banalizing effect of history and society, the men who experienced this felt that they were liberated.

Consequently, in the leftist world of thought which I am a part of, socialist men always wanted to be friends and girlfriends with feminist women. A man, who was together with a woman who is not feminist, was actually taking a decision to keep treading water and this is how it was perceived by his own circle as well.

But there are not many such men in the world that I am a part of. Therefore, the effect of feminism on socialism is not only political and intellectual but also personal. It is no longer possible to think of socialism and feminism separately, even though they are not the same thing.

I am not trying to say that men from the world of leftist thought are completely ridden of their manhood, crudity, aggression, male bonding, misogyny and do not inflict physical, psychological or sexual violence against women.

These and much more exist in the world of thought as in any field. But in this article—rather than focusing on the existence of the masculinities in the world of thought that are prevalent and dominant in other worlds—I want to address a specific masculinity that is unique to the world of thought and is prevalent and respected in this world: The authority of the male intellectual.

The air/aura of authority that surrounds the personalities of male academicians /thinkers/ intellectuals is created by the command or the claim to have command of knowledge and theory; the domineeringness and self-assuredness that is reflected on their mannerism; the self-entitlement to write on a myriad of subjects always with the same assertiveness; the manner of addressing grand subjects with strong/rigid thoughts or making extremely comprehensive analyses of minor subjects.

Be it the scientific authority created through books and articles, or the opinion leadership created through opinion columns and Tweets, this state of being the seeing/knowing/understanding subject becomes confirmed and completed to the extent that it is followed with admiration and approved by the younger men.

In other words, these performances of masculinity specific to the field of thought, turn into an authority by means of the admiring looks cast by the male audience. Even though this spell has been partially broken by the objections of women, men manage to sustain their intellectual authorities by containing these objections as well.

For instance, according to J.M. Coetzee, the "rational and secular intellectual" does not get hurt easily, they know that being hurt stems from a weak intellectual position and think that the winner of the free intellectual debate is determined by the rules of the mind. If this intellectual gets hurt and angry by a statement or a criticism, they also deliberate about why they got hurt, namely about their own feelings, and analyze their own feelings, thereby objectifying themselves.

According to the principle of "know yourself" which has retained its prestige since the time of Socrates, the intellectual can face the criticisms about themselves with a smile and encourage them, even the ones that can be regarded as insulting. [2]

Even though Coetzee is a new/soft man/writer in every aspect and undercuts his own authority by constantly relativizing himself, I am of the opinion that this definition of the intellectual can only be made by a man: A type of person who does not get hurt, disregards this feeling even if they get hurt, and appreciates and benefits from the criticisms directed against their own opinions.

However, this is not just a definition. The male intellectuals of this stripe, at least the ones who want to be like that, are really abound and this type of intellectuality is perhaps the biggest personal ideal for them.

When the discipline of sociology is considered in the same context, I think Pierre Bourdieu, who is perhaps the most important authority of the last fifty years, emerges as an interesting example. As somebody who also studied the ways in which authority is constructed, Bourdieu has himself created his own authority, which is constantly reproduced by his admirers/followers.

He created his own authority through his self-confident and imperious tone, the rich conceptual set that he developed, his field research, his effort of reflexivity and engagement in almost every subject. He went so far as to write on male domination, perhaps with the belief that he could do it better than women in a sense, and by risking from the onset the criticisms that could come from women. [3]

Again, in this context, it may also be interesting to look at the example of Immanuel Wallerstein, who is one of the biggest and most influential figures of historical sociology. With the "world-systems analysis", conceptual tools and academic theories that he constructed, Wallerstein did not only analyze the history of the world(s), but also made constant projections for the future of the world.

I think that this claim and desire to know, see and foresee everything, which is peculiar to male intellectuals, is accompanied by the feeling that they have the right to do so. Therefore, I have difficulty imagining a woman historical sociologist, for instance, who could have the desire to assert opinions about such extensive times and spaces, and not contenting herself with the past, would also talk about the future.

Numerous other examples could be found instead of these male intellectuals; however, I have deliberately chosen these names, Coetzee, Bourdieu and Wallerstein, whom I like the most and whose entire corpus I have tried to read. In other words, I have no prejudices or antipathy against these figures. On the contrary, I admire their tones, concepts, their ways of looking and seeing as well as their authority.

However, I still cannot be sure whether this writing and thinking style has something to do with a certain type of manhood and whether my admiration also has something to do with manhood. Is writing and thinking in that way what is supposed to be, I mean, are women also supposed to be able to write and think like that, or, is that really a reflection of the male domination and male ego/narcissism peculiar to the world of thought?

Hannah Arendt, who was one of the rare women thinkers who could compete with the breadth of male intellectuals' areas of interests and their authority-exuding tones in the 20th century, was asked, "Do you want to achieve extensive influence with these works?", her answer to this male journalist—and to the questions in my mind—was as follows: "If I may wax ironical, that is a masculine question. Men always want to be terribly influential..." [4]

However, this observation sometimes causes a strong anxiety inside me. Do I have to give up on what I have written and what I want to write? Can't I write on the subject that I want in the way that I want? Will I lessen myself with my own hands? If I give up on that, too, what will be left behind from Me?

I instantly remind myself that these are not "rational thoughts", but "unstable feelings" and that, as a man changed by feminism, I should not take my Self—at least in its conscious state—very seriously; however, from time to time, I cannot help but feel a wave of anxiety which materializes in this type of questions.

Moreover, I am aware that such anxieties are not peculiar to me, I know that in different contexts and at different moments most of the men around me feel "Now, that's too much, aren't we allowed to do that, either?". Still, in any case, the men in the world of thought have the cultural capital to overcome the crisis of manhood—in other words the fact that their manhood which takes on various forms is seen, questioned and scrutinized—by changing and rising above it.

Since they are expected to have this cultural capital, the men who are petrified in the face of this crisis are not well received in the world of thought and are belittled, which makes their crisis of manhood all the more deep.

However, the crisis of manhood is not limited to the men who have the cultural, social and economic capital to overcome this crisis by elevating. The majority of men do not have a course of change, or a road map to acquire material or immaterial profit/satisfaction from change.

As women become stronger, freer and more autonomous, as their self-confidence which spreads from the way they carry their bodies to the way they verbally express themselves increases, as they enter the labor market more, and compete with men more, and as they change a vast number of men and make "new men" out of them; men become weaker, they lose some of their privileges, they get scared and furious, they try to cling to their power over women, which is the only power left to them. Moreover, when it concurs with the crisis of the nation-states and increasing economic inequalities/uncertainties, the crisis of manhood intensifies. The hate felt for feminism, which is thought to feminize men and nations, as well as the enmity and violence directed against women and LGBTI individuals increase.

Leaders such as Erdoğan, Trump, Putin, Modi and Orbán, who represent masculinity, power, assertiveness, aggressiveness and fearlessness, emerge as masculine and nationalist heroes who can offset the crisis of men and nation-states, and they win.

They try to fortify manhood with nationalism, and the nation-state and their own power with manhood. For instance, Trump winning the Presidential election was probably about the crisis of manhood as much as the crisis of Whiteness (White and "old man" Trump against Black and "new man" Obama).

Even the "unstoppable rise of veganism" can be perceived as an attack on the power of manhood and nation-state. Even though it can be alleged that the rise of veganism is not directly linked to the rise of feminism (which it probably is), patriarchy's fear of veganism can be better understood considering that the vast majority of vegans, especially in the West, are women and youngsters.

Feminism and veganism probably represent the strongest tendencies against aggressiveness and violence today.

Several observers, the vast majority of whom are men, and especially Wallerstein say that the World is in a multi-dimensional crisis—including the structural crisis of capitalism—which will continue for decades and its final outcome will be determined by the struggle between the global left and the global right.

Indeed, everyone sees that we are going through an extraordinary period, the center and mainstream have collapsed and the extreme right and radical left have become stronger. Considering the emerging camps of this struggle that will continue for a long time, I think we can make the following generalization even though the real picture is a lot more complicated and irreducible: On the one side, there are states, rightists, nationalists, anti-feminists and "old men"; on the other side, there are grassroots movements, leftists, internationalists, feminists and "new men".

Then, in such a struggle, do the ones like Jeremy Corbyn, who is a typical "new man" and has been a vegetarian for more than fifty years, have a chance of winning against those like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who once said, "No one has the right to turn Turkey into a country of lions condemned to a vegetarian diet"?

Is it possible to fight against the powers that support inequality and employ all kinds of war weapons and physical aggression, by using the anti-violence and ethical methods of those who support equality?

Can feminists win this struggle together with their "male comrades", whom they have softened and molded into a new type of man? Or, in more general terms, can a power which gradually softens defeat a power which gradually hardens?

Even though I tend to answer such questions in the affirmative, they are not rhetorical questions. In other words, I am not entirely sure about the answers of these questions. But, I am not sure about the rationality of these questions, either, because I cannot help but think that only a man asks this type of terribly big questions. (BÜ/ŞA/APA/SD/TK/IG)

-

[1] bell hooks, Değişme İsteği: Erkekler, Erkeklik ve Sevgi, çev. Zeynep Kutluata (İstanbul, bgst Yayınları, 2018).

[2] J.M. Coetzee, "Taking Offense", Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), s. 3-5.

[3] Pierre Bourdieu, Eril Tahakküm, çev. Bediz Yılmaz (İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık, 2015).

[4] Hannah Arendt, Formasyon, Sürgün, Totalitarizm: Anlama Denemeleri (1930-1954), çev. İbrahim Yıldız (Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları, 2014), s. 40-41.

-

* Images: Kemal Gökhan Gürses

CLICK TO READ ALL "52 MEN 52 WEEKS" ARTICLES